Ricardo Klement:seems as if people are arguing that Zimmerman relinquished his right to life by his actions leading up to the confrontation

no one is saying that at all, and there is no indication that Trayvon was threatening Zimmerman's life. If they were actually to the fisticuffs - which Zimm started - at that point most would say he needs to just accept a little beating. While getting a little beat up sucks, it really doesn't mean the end of someone's life. You're suggesting the only reasonable end to the situation was death of the victim; most would think that a reasonable end would be Zimmerman getting punched a couple times, being a little dazed, standing up, and either not knowing where Trayvon went or - in knowing, knowing that maybe he shouldn't attack a third time.

Phinn:redmid17: Actually that would be pretty good grounds for a mistrial or a successful appeal. The intent of the law shouldn't matter to juries. What matters is how they were written and how they have been interpreted. The sponsor of this specific bill, who doesn't seem to have thought the content of the bill through that much, agrees with you -- this law was never meant to allow instigators of the confrontation to walk free. However courts in Florida have routinely held that the intent does not matter and that the law allows them to walk, hence people like Greyston Garcia and others to walk free.

Florida law is not unusual. You don't give up the right to be free from aggression just because you're a nosy busybody. Even if you're an actual aggressor, you still have the right not to be killed, if you disengage from the confrontation and clearly withdraw your threat, or have no way out of the conflict.

The problem here is not Florida law. The problem here is people who are so deranged with righteous fury over the whiff of RACISM that it drives them to distort their entire way of thinking. They seriously begin to think that it was right for Martin to start swinging merely because GZ was bothering him by following him at such a distance he lost sight of him, but that once Martin started pounding away, GZ was somehow ethically or legally obligated to take it.

The problem is the indignation and rage people feel over GZ having the audacity to do what cops do, for usurping the role of these Magical Supermen of Government, who have the right to do what mere mortals are forbidden to do.

The law is clear. The evidence is clear. It's the insane rage of the LYNCH ZIMMERMAN NOW crowd that's the problem.

Amen brother testify. What confuses me is the idea that following someone gives the followed person s reason to punch someone.

hinten:Leaving the legal situation aside, what's interesting is that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun nobody would have died that night.And this is not some pansy "butterfly wings", "if he had stayed in the car" type correlation. Fact is, very few brawls end up with someone dying.Thanks gun owners for making this world a more polite place.

Zimmerman shouldn't have even been allowed to have a gun, If not for his daddy the judge and his mom the court clerk and the family being all buddy-buddy with the legal system he would have an felony assaulting an officer charge and had his gun carrying privileges denied.

mayIFark:BraveNewCheneyWorld: mayIFark: That is exactly my question on this case. How did a 160lb 17yo kid made a 200lb (some sort of) martial art practicing adult fear him for his life with his bare hand?

You think there's no chance that a trim attacker who is 80% of the weight of a chubby victim isn't a threat to their life?

Yes, there is a chance. There are so many types of 17yo and so many chubby people. Was it in this case? GZ practiced some sort of martial art (forgot what its called), TM was not. Given everything that we know, I still think there was no need for GZ to pull that gun.

How many punches, in your expert opinion should GZ have let Martin give him before deadly force should be applied? Do you think the law differs for those who have their orange belt at Fred Villari's?

Ricardo Klement:Should what he did empower his assailant to kill him for his mistakes? It seems as if people are arguing that Zimmerman relinquished his right to life by his actions leading up to the confrontation.

I find it interesting that we are determining whether the suspects actions relinquished his right to life when the victim is dead...

hinten:Leaving the legal situation aside, what's interesting is that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun nobody would have died that night.And this is not some pansy "butterfly wings", "if he had stayed in the car" type correlation. Fact is, very few brawls end up with someone dying.Thanks gun owners for making this world a more polite place.

If he was just punching Zimmerman in the face, I would agree with you. But he wasn't just punching him, he was slamming his head against the sidewalk. It's not that far of a stretch to imagine someone being killed or put in a coma via that method. I don't know if it would take 3 strikes or 15. But I also know that I don't want to find out.

As a Constitutional matter, criminal rules cannot be written in a way that is vague -- they cannot be enforced if they do not specify the particular conduct that is punishable.

You keep retreating from the hard realities into issues like "intent of the law," because you are so emotionally invested in your opinion that GZ deserves punishment, that you are willing to ignore every legal principle, or won't even bother to understand them. As long as GZ gets his comeuppance, anything is fine with you.

You're engaging in denial, along with a host of other psychological defense mechanisms.

Phinn:Florida law is not unusual. You don't give up the right to be free from aggression just because you're a nosy busybody. Even if you're an actual aggressor, you still have the right not to be killed, if you disengage from the confrontation and clearly withdraw your threat, or have no way out of the conflict.

The problem here is not Florida law. The problem here is people who are so deranged with righteous fury over the whiff of RACISM that it drives them to distort their entire way of thinking. They seriously begin to think that it was right for Martin to start swinging merely because GZ was bothering him by following him at such a distance he lost sight of him, but that once Martin started pounding away, GZ was somehow ethically or legally obligated to take it.

The problem is the indignation and rage people feel over GZ having the audacity to do what cops do, for usurping the role of these Magical Supermen of Government, who have the right to do what mere mortals are forbidden to do.

The law is clear. The evidence is clear. It's the insane rage of the LYNCH ZIMMERMAN NOW crowd that's the problem.

Florida law is not unique, no but not all states work this way. In Texas, apparently you can kill a prostitute who refuses to put up or pay back. Other states have various statues including duty to retreat, here in PA I believe there is a specific statute for those carrying a concealed weapon with a permit. It does vary a lot from state to state.

Also, don't be so fast to accuse racism. An unarmed 17 year old was killed. That SUCKS. It really sucks. I can understand the outrage, regardless of race, because that's just a godawful terrible thing to happen. But the law is the law. Floridians don't like it, best lobby to change it because it says what it says. I would be making the EXACT same case if the races were reversed or they were both of the same race, that doesn't interest me other than it MAY (or may not) have been a factor in Zimmerman's decision to follow him in the first place, but that's not relevant to the confrontation.

BraveNewCheneyWorld:mayIFark: BraveNewCheneyWorld: mayIFark: That is exactly my question on this case. How did a 160lb 17yo kid made a 200lb (some sort of) martial art practicing adult fear him for his life with his bare hand?

You think there's no chance that a trim attacker who is 80% of the weight of a chubby victim isn't a threat to their life?

Yes, there is a chance. There are so many types of 17yo and so many chubby people. Was it in this case? GZ practiced some sort of martial art (forgot what its called), TM was not. Given everything that we know, I still think there was no need for GZ to pull that gun.

How many punches, in your expert opinion should GZ have let Martin give him before deadly force should be applied? Do you think the law differs for those who have their orange belt at Fred Villari's?

How many punches in your expert opinion justifies deadly force? or does a mean glare qualify?

Phinn:Hobodeluxe: intent of the law matters not just letter of the law.

In criminal cases, the court is obligated to apply the actual law.

As a Constitutional matter, criminal rules cannot be written in a way that is vague -- they cannot be enforced if they do not specify the particular conduct that is punishable.

You keep retreating from the hard realities into issues like "intent of the law," because you are so emotionally invested in your opinion that GZ deserves punishment, that you are willing to ignore every legal principle, or won't even bother to understand them. As long as GZ gets his comeuppance, anything is fine with you.

You're engaging in denial, along with a host of other psychological defense mechanisms.

no I'm just saying you can't go up to someone, pick a fight with them, get punched and justifiably kill them. that is not what the law is for.

PoochUMD:If he was just punching Zimmerman in the face, I would agree with you. But he wasn't just punching him, he was slamming his head against the sidewalk. It's not that far of a stretch to imagine someone being killed or put in a coma via that method. I don't know if it would take 3 strikes or 15. But I also know that I don't want to find out.

The Physical Evidence does not support that scenario at all. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was on the ground at all. While plenty support that Martin was. There are no defensive wounds on Zimmerman hands. No DNA made it from Zimmerman to Martin something that is highly unlikely given Zimmerman's account of the event.

Zimmerman's only wounds have no obvious source and where superficial. So them being self inflicted can not be ruled out.

I don't know about Florida's rules, but under federal rules, if the defendant in a murder case brings in prior bad acts of the victim in a self-defense claim, then the prosecution can bring in prior bad acts of the defendant. State rules usually follow the federal rules, but not always.

PoochUMD:hinten: Leaving the legal situation aside, what's interesting is that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun nobody would have died that night.And this is not some pansy "butterfly wings", "if he had stayed in the car" type correlation. Fact is, very few brawls end up with someone dying.Thanks gun owners for making this world a more polite place.

If he was just punching Zimmerman in the face, I would agree with you. But he wasn't just punching him, he was slamming his head against the sidewalk. It's not that far of a stretch to imagine someone being killed or put in a coma via that method. I don't know if it would take 3 strikes or 15. But I also know that I don't want to find out.

I won't say that I don't believe this because that just, you know, my opinion. But please make up your own mind after looking at the evidence.

Zimmerman's hands. No defensive wounds.

The back of his jacket after he rolled around on wet grass and concrete with someone sitting on top of him.

His pants after fighting on wet grass and concrete.

Also, again, leaving the legal question aside and assuming Martin did attack him as Z described (which is unlikely considering above evidence), who is to say that pounding someone is NOT the right reaction when the other person threatens you with a weapon?The weapon was what escalated this situation to someone's death and, as such, makes it, quite literally, the cause of an unnecessary death.

Garaba:PoochUMD: If he was just punching Zimmerman in the face, I would agree with you. But he wasn't just punching him, he was slamming his head against the sidewalk. It's not that far of a stretch to imagine someone being killed or put in a coma via that method. I don't know if it would take 3 strikes or 15. But I also know that I don't want to find out.

The Physical Evidence does not support that scenario at all. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was on the ground at all. While plenty support that Martin was. There are no defensive wounds on Zimmerman hands. No DNA made it from Zimmerman to Martin something that is highly unlikely given Zimmerman's account of the event.

Zimmerman's only wounds have no obvious source and where superficial. So them being self inflicted can not be ruled out.

hinten:Leaving the legal situation aside, what's interesting is that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun nobody would have died that night.And this is not some pansy "butterfly wings", "if he had stayed in the car" type correlation. Fact is, very few brawls end up with someone dying.Thanks gun owners for making this world a more polite place.

I contend that you're wrong based on this plausible scenario:Martin is on top of Zimmerman, striking him in some way to make his head contact the concrete repeatedly. Zimmerman says Martin saw his gun and went for it, but without the gun being present Martin doesn't cease his attack and continues to cause Zimmerman's head to strike the concrete. Zimmerman becomes more and more disoriented, eventually slipping into unconsciousness, and then passing away due to traumatic brain injury.

PoochUMD:IamAwake: PoochUMD: The 17 year old was also using the sidewalk as a weapon.

supported only by the killer, which goes completely against the physical evidence.

Then how did he get those cuts on the back of his head?

Let's be clear about what you mean by "cuts:" minor lacerations that didn't even require stitches, and unaccompanied by a concussion--or even by bruising. Certainly not the kind of injuries you would expect from someone having his head "bashed" so hard he was afraid for his life. Zimmerman's injuries were medically trivial. They do not support the violence of his action movie yarn.

Zimmerman exaggerated what happened. HIs exaggeration shows consciousness of wrongdoing, which in turn adds strength to the inference of his guilt.

Garaba:PoochUMD: If he was just punching Zimmerman in the face, I would agree with you. But he wasn't just punching him, he was slamming his head against the sidewalk. It's not that far of a stretch to imagine someone being killed or put in a coma via that method. I don't know if it would take 3 strikes or 15. But I also know that I don't want to find out.

The Physical Evidence does not support that scenario at all. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was on the ground at all. While plenty support that Martin was. There are no defensive wounds on Zimmerman hands. No DNA made it from Zimmerman to Martin something that is highly unlikely given Zimmerman's account of the event.

Zimmerman's only wounds have no obvious source and where superficial. So them being self inflicted can not be ruled out.

Seriously? There were eye witnesses who saw Martin straddling Zimmerman and beating the crap out of him. There are witnesses that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman the moment of the shot. Are you trying to argue that Zimmerman wasn't on the ground and that Martin was? That's a huge leap that requires you to ignore a bunch of stuff.

Zimmerman was seen pinned down while Martin beat him like a "UFC fighter" what kind of defensive wounds would you expect when you are pinned down?

The police failed to take evidence from Martins hands and didn't even photograph them. Even if Zimmermans account was 100% accurate and Martin had bloody hands moments before being shot, there wouldn't be evidence of it now.

Since Zimmerman started the confrontation, no amount of backlash would ever justify using deadly force. That's just not how reality works.

And if you think it does, you're a farking psychopath.

Zimmerman may have started the confrontation, but my guess (just a guess) is that Martin was the one who was the first one to use force of any kind. So even if Zimmerman was the one who initiated the verbal exchange, when (if) Martin escalated it to physical force, as soon as Zimmerman believed he was in danger of "great bodily harm" (as the use of deadly force laws put it here in NC), Zimmerman had the right to defend himself.

My (complete) guess at the scenario is:- Zimmerman approaches Martin in a public space- Zimmerman asks Martin what he's doing there- Martin and Zimmerman argue- Martin attacks Zimmerman- Zimmerman's on the sidewalk with Martin on top of him beating him, as seen by witness John Good- Zimmerman asks John Good for help- Good leaves (to call 911, but Zimmerman doesn't know that)- Zimmerman feels he's out of options defending himself- While Good is calling 911, Zimmerman shoots Martin

If this is the scenario (and while it's a guess, I feel it's not too far from what happened), Zimmerman shouldn't even be on trial. John Good's testimony is going to be the key to this case. My guess is the Sanford PD had Good's statement that he saw Martin beating Zimmerman, Zimmerman asked for help, and then he heard the gun shot. The SPD then decided it was self defense and charges were filed only after all the media attention was brought on the case.

Popcorn Johnny:MithrandirBooga: Since Zimmerman started the confrontation

IamAwake: He wasn't supposed to be hunting someone down, attacking them

Bontesla: Zimmerman's injuries don't prove that Martin caused them.

[i40.tinypic.com image 400x225]

She said she was beat by a black man too.and her ass wasn't on the line for her to do thisare you saying it's impossible for Zimmerman to have caused his own injuries to save his own ass?or that it's impossible or even improbable for him to lie to save his life?Also be aware that Zimmerman had taken criminal justice classes and specifically self defense law in his prep to be a cophe knew what he would need to justify his actions.

Garaba:PoochUMD: If he was just punching Zimmerman in the face, I would agree with you. But he wasn't just punching him, he was slamming his head against the sidewalk. It's not that far of a stretch to imagine someone being killed or put in a coma via that method. I don't know if it would take 3 strikes or 15. But I also know that I don't want to find out.

The Physical Evidence does not support that scenario at all. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was on the ground at all. While plenty support that Martin was. There are no defensive wounds on Zimmerman hands. No DNA made it from Zimmerman to Martin something that is highly unlikely given Zimmerman's account of the event.

Zimmerman's only wounds have no obvious source and where superficial. So them being self inflicted can not be ruled out.

You mean except Zimmerman's blood on Martin's shirt near the hem as was told to the jury yesterday by the defensive attorney with no objection from the prosecution?

Hobodeluxe:no I'm just saying you can't go up to someone, pick a fight with them, get punched and justifiably kill them. that is not what the law is for.

Try reading the actual law sometime.

You have the right to use lethal force if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. Getting "punched" can certainly qualify, depending on the circumstances.

More importantly, the State is required to prove that the homicide was not self-defense, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You can't understand the legal principle unless you know the facts. But in practice, the facts are derived from evidence, which is usually ambiguous.

"Picking a fight" is not a meaningful legal term. Your entire line of thinking hinges on this one concept, but it can mean so many things that it's not legally irrelevant.

Here's the full legal standard in a nutshell -- In a self-defense case, the State cannot convict someone of the unlawful use of lethal force unless they can present evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that such force was not necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

If somebody is repeatedly trying to punch me, then I am going to fear for my life. I'm not going to trust the already questionable decision making skills of the person beating me to stop before I'm critically or fatally wounded. Any hit could be the fatal blow. Otherwise healthy people have been punched *once* and died as a result, either due to the blow itself, or the resulting contact with a hard surface. While very few brawls might lead to someone dying, we're not talking about winning or losing a scratch-off lotto ticket. If you lose, you aren't just out a dollar, you are dead.

PoochUMD:IamAwake: PoochUMD: The 17 year old was also using the sidewalk as a weapon.

supported only by the killer, which goes completely against the physical evidence.

Then how did he get those cuts on the back of his head?

a quarter inch cut on the back of the head is not what a bald guy would have after being repeatedly bashed against the sidewalk in a manner that he would reasonably think threatens his life. A tiny quarter inch cut could have come from falling over and hitting the dirt, who knows - I've seen plenty of people sustain more damage doing exactly that (falling and landing on dirt). What we can be certain about is that in the real world, if his head was really being bashed against the concrete then it would have had serious damage. On the back. Blood, bruising, torn up skin, etc.

Not in MMA, WWE, or whatever other stage thing, perhaps - but in the real world, in a real fight with real humans and real concrete, that's how that really works.

ChaosStar:hinten: Leaving the legal situation aside, what's interesting is that if Zimmerman didn't have a gun nobody would have died that night.And this is not some pansy "butterfly wings", "if he had stayed in the car" type correlation. Fact is, very few brawls end up with someone dying.Thanks gun owners for making this world a more polite place.

I contend that you're wrong based on this plausible scenario:Martin is on top of Zimmerman, striking him in some way to make his head contact the concrete repeatedly. Zimmerman says Martin saw his gun and went for it, but without the gun being present Martin doesn't cease his attack and continues to cause Zimmerman's head to strike the concrete. Zimmerman becomes more and more disoriented, eventually slipping into unconsciousness, and then passing away due to traumatic brain injury.

Why would Martin bash Zimmerman's head on the ground if Martin wasn't afraid for his life if Zimmerman didn't flash his weapon?

And the evidence still doesn't show conclusively that Martin was doing any such thing.

Hobodeluxe:BraveNewCheneyWorld: mayIFark: BraveNewCheneyWorld: mayIFark: That is exactly my question on this case. How did a 160lb 17yo kid made a 200lb (some sort of) martial art practicing adult fear him for his life with his bare hand?

You think there's no chance that a trim attacker who is 80% of the weight of a chubby victim isn't a threat to their life?

Yes, there is a chance. There are so many types of 17yo and so many chubby people. Was it in this case? GZ practiced some sort of martial art (forgot what its called), TM was not. Given everything that we know, I still think there was no need for GZ to pull that gun.

How many punches, in your expert opinion should GZ have let Martin give him before deadly force should be applied? Do you think the law differs for those who have their orange belt at Fred Villari's?

How many punches in your expert opinion justifies deadly force? or does a mean glare qualify?

I only know the law in CT, and we're probably more strict here. A single punch from someone on top of you is enough.

(One such / Another) circumstance is that a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if (he/she) knows that (he/she) can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating. This disqualification requires a defendant to retreat instead of using deadly physical force whenever two conditions are met: 1) a completely safe retreat is in fact available to (him/her); and 2) (he/she) knows that (he/she) can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force by making that completely safe retreat. The law stresses that self-defense cannot be retaliatory. It must be defensive and not punitive.

The term "complete safety," as used in this statute, means without any injury to the defendant whatsoever. A person acts "knowingly" with respect to a circumstance described in a statute when (he/she) is aware that such circumstance exists. LinkThe only way around this would be to prove that Zimmerman was the initial attacker beyond any reasonable doubt.

Bontesla:If Zimmerman felt his odds were better at trial instead of the pretrial hearing, then that is pretty interesting, no? His attorney fees would be cheaper, there's much less risk, and the burden needed to establish SYG is insanely low.

If Garcia could then why wouldn't Zimmerman do the same? That would be the smartest play.

Because judges are more susceptible to political pressure than juries are?

IamAwake:PoochUMD: IamAwake: PoochUMD: The 17 year old was also using the sidewalk as a weapon.

supported only by the killer, which goes completely against the physical evidence.

Then how did he get those cuts on the back of his head?

a quarter inch cut on the back of the head is not what a bald guy would have after being repeatedly bashed against the sidewalk in a manner that he would reasonably think threatens his life. A tiny quarter inch cut could have come from falling over and hitting the dirt, who knows - I've seen plenty of people sustain more damage doing exactly that (falling and landing on dirt). What we can be certain about is that in the real world, if his head was really being bashed against the concrete then it would have had serious damage. On the back. Blood, bruising, torn up skin, etc.

Not in MMA, WWE, or whatever other stage thing, perhaps - but in the real world, in a real fight with real humans and real concrete, that's how that really works.